-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
My one criticism of 4th ed: poor artistic style
- Thread starter Silverblade The Ench
- Start date
Hairfoot
First Post
I agree 100%.
Aus_Snow
First Post
I think some of the art is quite nice. Other bits, not good. Really, really awful. But it's not like I can't say the same about 3e. Or 2e, probably (not so familiar with that, though).
I'd also agree that there seems to be less of that 'flipside of wahoo' going on.
Either way, they do seem to be thrashing the recycling, overly much. When I look at a gallery for a 4e book and recognise that many images? Hrm.
I'd also agree that there seems to be less of that 'flipside of wahoo' going on.
Either way, they do seem to be thrashing the recycling, overly much. When I look at a gallery for a 4e book and recognise that many images? Hrm.
My big issue with 4e's art is that it seems very cartoony at times. I look at the pictures of the Archons and simply cannot find a way to make them seem awesome or threatening. Look at the ice archon - they look like Cobra soldiers from GI Joe, not giant horrifying life-destroying creatures of old. This combined with the "Wahoo-ism" that others have mentioned makes parts of 4e look less like an adventure and more like a Saturday morning cartoon.
Compare them to some of the pictures in, say, the Eberron books, where the first thing you open the book to is this awesome battle with tons of mysterious and evil looking creatures and heroes that stand out. You open the Eberron book and go "Holy crap, I need to replicate this in my game." I haven't had that with any of the 4e art.
Ironically, the art re-usal isn't that big of a bad note - it's where the actual good art is at, more often then not
Compare them to some of the pictures in, say, the Eberron books, where the first thing you open the book to is this awesome battle with tons of mysterious and evil looking creatures and heroes that stand out. You open the Eberron book and go "Holy crap, I need to replicate this in my game." I haven't had that with any of the 4e art.
Ironically, the art re-usal isn't that big of a bad note - it's where the actual good art is at, more often then not
Last edited:
I think the treatment has generally been appropriate to each edition (with the exception of Greg Bell's work in the little brown books).
That Elmore piece screams "Second Edition AD&D!" to me, from the Thomas Kinkade-ish style to the "posing for a photo" conceit. The "Rock of Bral" and "Ivory Triangle" covers also stand out as period pieces.
The "Dune Trader" cover, on the other hand is very Dark Sun, and (without the copy) the painting could as easily evoke Gamma World or Skyrealms of Jorune. That in itself is rather 2nd Edition-like, coming from a period in which the game's own identity was seen as inadequate and so old bits got endlessly recycled in mixture with elements borrowed from other original creations. The results in my opinion lacked the integrity and vigor of the sources they cannibalized, because they lacked the "fire in the belly" of a creator with a singular vision (even as wildly eclectic a vision as, say, Dave Hargrave's). Not only was TSR's AD&D no longer stamped with Gary Gygax's personality, it nor longer bore any stamp but that of a committee.
I see that what I've written so far focuses on negatives. The differences of Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and so on from what had become viewed as a "standard" D&D setting reflected the renewed (but commercialized) emphasis in 2E on the D&D game's wide-open possibilities. The flood of kits and other options tended toward rules-heaviness, but also offered a lot of inspiration for the making of "a game of one's own" that had been central to the original rules-light release.
The very polished and self-consciously commercial presentation reflects something that was both good and bad: the line drawn between "game professionals" and "hobbyists." The nature and sheer volume of "support" provided by the former enabled the latter to embrace a wider demographic. People who wanted to could still "do it yourself", but there was plenty for those with more cash to spare than time and energy. Volumes were published covering in depth (and accessible prose) every aspect of Dungeon Mastering, often reduced to easy-to-follow recipes. The growing disconnection between producing "product" for publication and actually running a campaign was perhaps not so healthy, at least from the perspective of those who appreciate the merits of more rough hewn works clearly derived from the latter context.
The "iconic" artists of 1st ed. AD&D (Sutherland, Trampier, Otus) were strongly associated with the players/designers of the game itself. Their depictions of (for instance) kobolds sometimes became more definitive than the original concepts -- because they somehow "felt right." Black and white ink line work was a practical necessity, but also a medium conducive to drawing connections with sources of inspiration for the game. (At least two illustrations in the 1st ed. DMG are based on works by artists rather better known in academia.)
Figures on average are not as "posed" as in later editions, and indeed often catch the eye only after the scenery that is so much neglected these days. The adventurers tend to look less like superheroes, more like hard-bitten soldiers of fortune. Outside of Otus, their kit draws inspiration from actual medieval artifacts -- and the fantastic of Otus is unmistakably his own. What's "cool" seems a lot less associated with the "heroes" looking good; indeed, misfortune is a fairly frequent (and often humorous) subject.
There's a rough, sometimes amateurish aspect that may at times obscure the artists' real technical competence, but is in keeping with the game's general tenor. It does not want to be another "glitzy" Disco Era commodity. Its heart is made of Weird Tales pulp.
The Moldvay and Mentzer Basic sets pretty much kept up with trends in the AD&D line. Some pieces may be timeless, but on balance the books are well situated in the 1980s. One can see in them the transition from Otus to Elmore, the embracing of which may suggest a reason they are often called "Classic" D&D.
With 3E, we get into a whole new set of influences all around. "Who the heck is Abe Merritt, and what has he got to do with D&D?" is the sort of question that I think was often not even in the minds of the new generation. Hannes Bok was probably about as much "off the radar" for the illustrators.
I see 4E as a fuller realization of that new ethos. Perhaps it is merely as much "of its time" as the others. To me it seems more limited in its horizons, disconnected from the long legacy that made it possible -- but I think it takes a remove of more time to get a critical perspective.
Not much is really to my taste in terms of subject matter and composition, but I can appreciate many employments of technique. The graphic design as a whole I find much easier on the eyes than the 3E books, and in general I like the illustrations better. The big ones I rank weaker than the occasional pieces, which include some gems from artists of whose work I would be delighted to see more.
That Elmore piece screams "Second Edition AD&D!" to me, from the Thomas Kinkade-ish style to the "posing for a photo" conceit. The "Rock of Bral" and "Ivory Triangle" covers also stand out as period pieces.
The "Dune Trader" cover, on the other hand is very Dark Sun, and (without the copy) the painting could as easily evoke Gamma World or Skyrealms of Jorune. That in itself is rather 2nd Edition-like, coming from a period in which the game's own identity was seen as inadequate and so old bits got endlessly recycled in mixture with elements borrowed from other original creations. The results in my opinion lacked the integrity and vigor of the sources they cannibalized, because they lacked the "fire in the belly" of a creator with a singular vision (even as wildly eclectic a vision as, say, Dave Hargrave's). Not only was TSR's AD&D no longer stamped with Gary Gygax's personality, it nor longer bore any stamp but that of a committee.
I see that what I've written so far focuses on negatives. The differences of Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and so on from what had become viewed as a "standard" D&D setting reflected the renewed (but commercialized) emphasis in 2E on the D&D game's wide-open possibilities. The flood of kits and other options tended toward rules-heaviness, but also offered a lot of inspiration for the making of "a game of one's own" that had been central to the original rules-light release.
The very polished and self-consciously commercial presentation reflects something that was both good and bad: the line drawn between "game professionals" and "hobbyists." The nature and sheer volume of "support" provided by the former enabled the latter to embrace a wider demographic. People who wanted to could still "do it yourself", but there was plenty for those with more cash to spare than time and energy. Volumes were published covering in depth (and accessible prose) every aspect of Dungeon Mastering, often reduced to easy-to-follow recipes. The growing disconnection between producing "product" for publication and actually running a campaign was perhaps not so healthy, at least from the perspective of those who appreciate the merits of more rough hewn works clearly derived from the latter context.
The "iconic" artists of 1st ed. AD&D (Sutherland, Trampier, Otus) were strongly associated with the players/designers of the game itself. Their depictions of (for instance) kobolds sometimes became more definitive than the original concepts -- because they somehow "felt right." Black and white ink line work was a practical necessity, but also a medium conducive to drawing connections with sources of inspiration for the game. (At least two illustrations in the 1st ed. DMG are based on works by artists rather better known in academia.)
Figures on average are not as "posed" as in later editions, and indeed often catch the eye only after the scenery that is so much neglected these days. The adventurers tend to look less like superheroes, more like hard-bitten soldiers of fortune. Outside of Otus, their kit draws inspiration from actual medieval artifacts -- and the fantastic of Otus is unmistakably his own. What's "cool" seems a lot less associated with the "heroes" looking good; indeed, misfortune is a fairly frequent (and often humorous) subject.
There's a rough, sometimes amateurish aspect that may at times obscure the artists' real technical competence, but is in keeping with the game's general tenor. It does not want to be another "glitzy" Disco Era commodity. Its heart is made of Weird Tales pulp.
The Moldvay and Mentzer Basic sets pretty much kept up with trends in the AD&D line. Some pieces may be timeless, but on balance the books are well situated in the 1980s. One can see in them the transition from Otus to Elmore, the embracing of which may suggest a reason they are often called "Classic" D&D.
With 3E, we get into a whole new set of influences all around. "Who the heck is Abe Merritt, and what has he got to do with D&D?" is the sort of question that I think was often not even in the minds of the new generation. Hannes Bok was probably about as much "off the radar" for the illustrators.
I see 4E as a fuller realization of that new ethos. Perhaps it is merely as much "of its time" as the others. To me it seems more limited in its horizons, disconnected from the long legacy that made it possible -- but I think it takes a remove of more time to get a critical perspective.
Not much is really to my taste in terms of subject matter and composition, but I can appreciate many employments of technique. The graphic design as a whole I find much easier on the eyes than the 3E books, and in general I like the illustrations better. The big ones I rank weaker than the occasional pieces, which include some gems from artists of whose work I would be delighted to see more.
Not a fan of Elmore, I don't have much problems with 4e art, though it features too many dragonborn and tiefling for my taste. Not a fan of those races either though my players are. I would like to see some more art on deva since I am not sure of the look that these guys are supposed to have. I guess I'll know more when my PHB2 arrives.
If we're talking about art/artists we DO/DID like, then I can only quote from elsewhere:
"Tony DiTerlizzi is a graphic artist who worked on Planescape. He was fired for making better drawings than everybody else and helping make Planescape the best setting in the world."
"Tony DiTerlizzi is a graphic artist who worked on Planescape. He was fired for making better drawings than everybody else and helping make Planescape the best setting in the world."
Monkey Boy
First Post
We seem to be missing the OP's point. I don't think he's arguing that one artist is better than the other. He is arguing that 4e lacks coherent art direction. I don't necessarily agree. I think 4e has a clear theme of exagerated (cartoonish?) action and that's fine. WoW has shown there is a market for this. 4E is reflecting the look of the times and needs to inorder to stay current.
I think the OP may have a valid point with regards to re-cycled art. It is difficult to have an artistic theme to a game line if you are re-using art from older editions.
I also think that the theme or mood evoked by the Darksun line was consistant due to the use of 2-3? artists for the line. Brom to me was the stand out.
I think the OP may have a valid point with regards to re-cycled art. It is difficult to have an artistic theme to a game line if you are re-using art from older editions.
I also think that the theme or mood evoked by the Darksun line was consistant due to the use of 2-3? artists for the line. Brom to me was the stand out.
Jack Colby
First Post
There are actually a lot of great traditional fantasy artists out there online, the only difference being many of them do fully digital art as opposed to paint and canvas. The look is similar though. I guess WotC doesn't like hiring "amateurs" though, no matter how awesome they are.
I think people who like traditional, believable fantasy just need to accept that WotC isn't interested in that for D&D anymore. They are married to the over-the-top stuff now, it seems. I really wonder if some great traditional art would have made the 4E rules seem less "Gamey" and more rooted in something believable.
Similar Threads
